STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MADAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378(3)(I) Cr. PC against the judgment, dated 20 -9 -1979, of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, in case No. 372/1976.

(2.) IT will suffice to state for purposes of this appeal that on February 16, 1976, at 9,00 p m. Head Constable Mohanlal received an Information that accused respondents were in possession of illicit liquor. Thereupon the Head Constable went to bus stand where he found the respondents sitting. On search, respondent Madan Singh was found to be in possession of one bag and a in container full of illicit liquor while respondent Sua was found to he in possession of two Jarikanes of illicit liquor. The respondent were arrested and after usual investigation, they were challaned in the trial court Charges under Section 54 of the Excise Act were framed against the respondents and prosecution examined five witnesses. After recording their statements under Section 313 Cr. PC in which they denied the allegations of the prosecution and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the trial court acquitted the respondents. The acquittal was on technical ground that the Head Constable Mohanlal was not competent under Section 45 of the Excise Act to arrest and detain the accused persons. '

(3.) THE main ground raised in the appeal is that the trial court committed error in wrongly construing Section 45 of the Excise Act and ignoring the State notification No. F. 1(52) E.T./61 dated 9 -9 -1961 RGG(l) V -C, dated 26th October, 1961. It has been urged that the trial court relied on an authority of Allahabad High Court, reported in 1965 A.L.J. 20, which related to State of U.P. and there may have been a separate notification for that State. The contention of the State is that the Head Constable as per the notification mentioned above is authorized to search and seize the illicit liquor and arrest the person, found in possession of the same. It is further urged that the offence under Section 54 of the Excise Act is fully proved against the respondent.